CDNowak

Saints and Sinners: Rick Santorum on Climate Change

leonardchris:

cdnowak:

nikosnature:

“We were put on this Earth as creatures of God to have dominion over the Earth, to use it wisely and steward it wisely, but for our benefit not for the Earth’s benefit,” Santorum told a Colorado crowd earlier this month.

He went on to call climate change “an absolute travesty of scientific…

Well, in a sense he’s right, he’s just not applying his findings well.  God gave us the planet to steward wisely for our benefit, not the benefit of the Earth.  But our benefit includes the benefit of the earth.  Healthy humans require a healthy earth, and that healthy earth is reached by proper environmental policies, those same policies that he rejects.

Considering that the science cannot explain the history of fluctuating temperatures, the measures proposed are too draconian.  The financial impact of Cap and Trade would cripple what is left of American industry, hurting the employees in the factories the most.  

Yes we need stewardship, not a tighter squeeze by the heavy hand of government.

So because science can’t explain every detail of how our climate is changing, we shouldn’t do anything about it, even if the MAJOR consensus is that change is human-induced? What an awful perspective. Seriously. I hate to be rude, but when was the last time you’ve done anything and been 100% sure it’s the exact right move? I can think of once, and that was when I became Catholic. 

It’s funny, because science is supposed to be respected in our church (also, the Pope is on our side) but why don’t people look past the potential economic shortfalls? They’re even likely to be small because lots of labor and materials are needed for green energy! Seriously! What’s more important, our entirely arbitrary (in the long run) monetary system (which won’t even take that large of a hit, seriously) or our planet? Money or respecting God’s gift to us?

Here’s Jon Huntsman Jr. on climate change science:

“This is an issue that ought to be answered by the scientific community; I’m not a meteorologist. All I know is 90 percent of the scientists say climate change is occurring. If 90 percent of the oncological community said something was causing cancer we’d listen to them.”

To your first question, ~1 month, and roughly every six months before that.

I do respect science, enough not to trust a continually failing hypothesis.  Temperatures have fallen slightly over the past 7 years, prompting a sudden shift to concern over ‘climate change’ instead of ‘global warming’.  Since there has been no huge change in man’s behavior, there must be other causal factors.

Likewise the science is still (perpetually?) a generation away on green tech.  The supposed green jobs will not be sustainable until they are able to supplant fossil fuel jobs (hence no gain).  As to the economic consequences: Solyndra, Ovonic (UniSolar where I am), etc… 

Cap and trade will magnifying the fluctuations in energy prices, crippling industrial production, driving up the cost of all transported goods, etc.  It has the very real potential to permanently crash the US economy, leading to worldwide destabilization.  

That doesn’t mean that we stop encouraging research into green tech, or replant forests as we use them, but alarmism is only going to create greater problems.